Facial asymmetry and chewing sides in twins

Abstract

Objective: To resolve how the preferred chewing side (PCS) affects facial asymmetry in twins, whether there are differences between monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins, and whether the twins with PCS have more asymmetric faces compared to symmetrically chewing twins. Material and methods: The study included 106 Lithuanian twin pairs of the same sex, 59 MZ and 47 DZ pairs. The data were analysed from facial 3D images and manually added landmarks. 3D images were analysed by Rapidform2006 software and statistical analyses were done by using the R software environment version 4.1.0. Results: The contralateral effect of PCS and larger chin side was dominant among right and non-right side chewing twins. Being female increased the whole face symmetry. Conclusion:The volume of the chin becomes larger on the side opposite to the twins' habitual chewing side. As the results are quite similar in both twin types, functional factors are more prominent than heredity.

Combined microfocused ultrasound and delicate pulsed light for facial rejuvenation: A prospective, randomized, and split‐face study

“…This lack of differentiation could be attributed to the prevalent facial asymmetry among patients, potentially influenced by factors like unilateral chewing and sleeping habits. 24,25 Within our MFU therapy protocol, personalized interventions are tailored to individual patients, involving targeted lipolysis treatments at 3.0 mm depth in areas abundant in facial fat, and 4.5 mm depth treatments in regions with pronounced sagging, aiming for a harmonized facial esthetic. Consequently, the overall facial rejuvenation and enhancement of facial harmony obscure the enhancements in skin tone facilitated by DPL, rendering it challenging for patients to discern disparities between the two sides of the face.…”

“…We unexpectedly discovered that there was no statistically significant difference in GAIS scores of the 20 patients between the experimental and control groups among. This lack of differentiation could be attributed to the prevalent facial asymmetry among patients, potentially influenced by factors like unilateral chewing and sleeping habits 24,25 . Within our MFU therapy protocol, personalized interventions are tailored to individual patients, involving targeted lipolysis treatments at 3.0 mm depth in areas abundant in facial fat, and 4.5 mm depth treatments in regions with pronounced sagging, aiming for a harmonized facial esthetic.…”

Uptight responses between clenching and forearm raising with factors of visual feedback and maintenance effort in healthy young women: An experimental study on factorial design

“…During development, central and peripheral mastication leads to intellectual mastication, which generates accommodative jaw, tongue, and lip movements [ 5 ]. In twin population observations, a larger jaw volume was found on the chewing side, suggesting that functional factors were more obvious than genetic factors [ 6 ]. Therefore, an asymmetrical condylar head and body length are observed in patients with a unilateral posterior crossbite [ 7 ].…”